The marriage calls into question the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury ”“ one of four fundamental points of unity for the worldwide communion ”“ and tears at the very heart of Anglicanism.
Only three years ago, Dr Williams flew to meet the African archbishops to reassure them that the Church’s teaching on sexuality would not be compromised by the introduction of the Civil Partnerships Act. The Church issued guidelines allowing clergy to register their relationships on the condition that they assured their bishop that they would abstain from sex. It said homosexual couples should not be given formal services to celebrate their relationship.
The archbishop stressed that priests who broke these rules would be disciplined. However, a number of clergy have since performed so called “blessing services” for homosexual couples. These are significantly different from wedding services: they involve no wedding rite; there is no exchange of vows, no bridesmaids or pageboys. Most are carried out quietly. Despite being controversial, not one has resulted in disciplinary proceedings.
The fact that one vicar has actually conducted a proper wedding service, using such traditional liturgy and furthermore, between two priests, makes the issue impossible to ignore.
I am not a prophet but as just an observer I would not be surprised if the discipline is mild and was given because the errant one progressed too quickly.
Don
“…The archbishop will be expected to act by showing strong leadership…” or will he praise by faint damning?
I expect the Bishop and the ABC to try to sweep this under the rug and hope it is quickly forgotten. I do not expect either one of these churchmen to do anything to harm the gay agenda in the church in England or the USA.
I don’t see how they can sweep it under the rug, given the timing of it with GAFCON and Lambeth coming up. It could not be a worse scenario for the ABC — a lot more clarity than he would have wanted to be faced with right now, I suspect.
If Rowan Cantuar wants to guarantee a schism in the Communion, his timing couldn’t be better!
This is like a tie game bottom of the ninth and your only good pitcher left tht you can use is on the mound and the count is 3-2 and the bases are loaded and you need 4 runs to win! All eyes are on the pitcher…..+Rowan!
Maybe we need a report, something along the line of the Wendsor Report (5-6 years) and then a revision of a covenant (10-20) years. That ought to cover it (up).
[blockquote] The fact that one vicar has actually conducted a proper wedding service, using such traditional liturgy and furthermore, between two priests, makes the issue impossible to ignore. [/blockquote]
Who wants to place bets on that?
yeah right!
7. Br. Michael has the most likely outcome. Obfuscation is the name of the game. There is no chance that this will be quickly handled. By the time the placid decision is made no one will remember the infraction.
Don
This is not the first time in Anglicanism that some self-deceived priests have flaunted their rebellion against the Christian way and vainly imagined they deserved praise for being so avant-garde, prophetic, and progressive. Nor is it likely to be the last.
Why am I not surprised that the first gay “wedding” in the UK ivolves two renegade priests? In the US, when we liberalized our policy regarding divorce and remarriage, it was unseemly to say the least that many of the first people in TEC to take advantage of the new looser rules were clergy whose marriages had failed.
David Handy+
[blockquote]This is like a tie game bottom of the ninth and your only good pitcher left tht you can use is on the mound and the count is 3-2 and the bases are loaded and you need 4 runs to win! All eyes are on the pitcher…..+Rowan! [/blockquote]
I actually laughed out loud reading this, ODC. Sorry, but reasserters are behind by 15 runs and our pitcher, ++Rowan, is wearing the other team’s uniform.
Jeffersonian,
My bad! Right you are! As Charlie Brown would say…..ARRRRGH!
Hey, cut out all this criticism of Rowan! The deck chair on the RMS Titanic have never looked better.
I feel an idiot to approach this but,
“…clergy whose marriages had failed.”
Should read, “…clergy who had failed their marriage.”
God’s institutions can not fail.
Don
I dunno, from the rumblings of England’s conservative clergy over female bishops, this may have been the bolt pulled out of the critical point in the superstructure that will bring the whole bridge tumbling down. Events slip farther and farther out of Cantaur’s control from his continued dithering.
RE: “The archbishop will be expected to act by showing strong leadership…”
He will?
By whom?
The Archbishop has no jurisdiction in this matter. I hope he will reaffirm his commitment tot he House of Bishops’ Guidelines.
In addition, there is a formal quasi judicial disciplinary process under English Canon Law that purposefully, unlike in TEC, respects the rights of all parties. Bishops are obliged to follow it. It begins with a formal written complaint. If a relevant party wishes to begin the process they have to write to Bishop Richard Chartres with a formal complaint.
If there is no written complaint – the Bishop can have a stern talk but cannot discipline. I imagine he too will want to reaffirm the Guidelines.
There is no such thing as inhibition or depostion under English Canon Law.
As is wrote on SF:
The clearest ground for complain IMO is against the Rector for breaching the Bishops’ Guidelines on blessings in church after civil partnership ceremonies. He is, on the face of it, clearly and willfully in breach.
[blockquote]The marriage calls into question the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury – one of four fundamental points of unity for the worldwide communion – and tears at the very heart of Anglicanism.
Only three years ago, Dr Williams flew to meet the African archbishops to reassure them that the Church’s teaching on sexuality would not be compromised by the introduction of the Civil Partnerships Act. The Church issued guidelines allowing clergy to register their relationships on the condition that they assured their bishop that they would abstain from sex. It said homosexual couples should not be given formal services to celebrate their relationship.
The archbishop stressed that priests who broke these rules would be disciplined. However, a number of clergy have since performed so called “blessing services” for homosexual couples. These are significantly different from wedding services: they involve no wedding rite; there is no exchange of vows, no bridesmaids or pageboys. Most are carried out quietly. Despite being controversial, not one has resulted in disciplinary proceedings.
The fact that one vicar has actually conducted a proper wedding service, using such traditional liturgy and furthermore, between two priests, makes the issue impossible to ignore.[/blockquote]
#19 Let me say again there can be no disciplinary action unless there is a formal written complaint. If there have been such blessings (and I accept that some clergy are probably quietly disobeying the Bishops’ Guidelines) then action can only be taken against those who officiate at them if someone formally complains.
A more damning suggestion would be that formal complaints had been received in connection with such blessings in church after civil union but no action taken.
Of course the Archbishop has absolutely no jurisdiction in such matters and is completely reliant on the Bishops enforcing their own agreed Guidelines.
Br. Michael–I like your spelling–“Wendsor” Report. It is a good descriptor as the Report wends its way into oblivion.
Elves, please note–this was a two-liner and it asserted a point.
Thank you, Driver8. TEC anglicans often assume +RDW is operating in an unregulated church something like our own. This means we expect him to act without canonical authority, like our own PB. Most episcopalians are unaware that the CofE actually has an ecclesiastical court with real judges at the ready (some of whom are secular judges). Would that we had some independent court like this. At any event, +MSJ states the reality in this quote:
“The bishop (+Winchester) said that it was up to the Rt Rev Richard Chartres, the Bishop of London, to act, adding that it would become a high-profile test case of Church authority.”
driver8, who has to file a complaint? A member of the parish? A member of the diocese? Clergy, lay? Time to get this process underway, and if the whole house of cards is not to fall down this month, time to get publicity about the complaint having been filed in order to put pressure on the proper authorities. A few unequivocal public condemnations would help, too.
[blockquote]This is like a tie game bottom of the ninth and your only good pitcher left tht you can use is on the mound and the count is 3-2 and the bases are loaded and you need 4 runs to win! All eyes are on the pitcher…..+Rowan![/blockquote]
Pardon me, but this game is over. It’s just that nobody noticed at the time.
If your pitcher is on the mound in the bottom of the inning, and you are four runs behind, you were four runs behind at the end of the top of the inning.
The team whose pitcher is on the mound in the bottom of the ninth, has no more at bats and cannot possibly score.
If you are the visiting team and bat first, and you are behind at the end of the ninth, the bottom of the ninth will not be played: you lost.
There may be a moral here.
That should have been “end of the top of the ninth.”
Thank you 20 and 22. Bottom line is that nothing will be done. That is good to know. Reappraisers go blithly along their way breaking canons and rules with impunity, creating new facts on the ground, while theorthodox (reasserters) get regularly beaten up, if necessary by invented canons.
Why is that one side is never disciplined (because it can’t be done, no power you know, not in the canons etc.) and wnen it comes to us there is always a way found?
Anybody hear a fiddle being played… smell any smoke?
#23 Good question. Here is the a summary:
[blockquote]A. HOW DO YOU MAKE A FORMAL COMPLAINT?
It must be in writing to the Diocesan Bishop. The letter must contain:-
– your personal details (name, address, telephone number, e-mail, etc.),
– a clear statement of what your complaint is,
– details about the complaint (when, where, what happened, etc.),
– the evidence you provide to justify the complaint (this may be
statements, letters, etc.),
– a declaration that what you state is the truth.
Please note: A form is available for you to use if you would find this helpful. It leads you through the necessary information in an easy way. You may obtain a copy from the diocesan office or Church of England website .
If you have difficulty with forms or written material, the diocesan office can provide a person to assist you.
B. WHO CAN COMPLAIN?
A formal complaint can only be made by someone with a ‘proper interest’. Those who have a ‘proper interest’ are:-
– any person (church member or not) who has witnessed or experienced the behaviour which has led to the complaint,
– a Churchwarden in the relevant parish,
– a person who is appointed by the Parochial Church Council of the
relevant parish to make the complaint,
– the Archdeacon.
Please note: It is the responsibility of the person complaining to justify the complaint, and to provide the evidence in support of the complaint.[/blockquote]
driver8
I understand what you have said about discipline quite a ew times now. But, my #19 post is straight from the Telegraph article. I find it very interesing that 3 yearsgo +Rowan had to go and reassure a few Primates that your Civil Partnership Act wasn’t going to compromise the Church and that if priests broke the Churches rules they would disciplined. How then can he state that when in fact as yu say none can happen unless a complaint is filed? I jst find it quite interesting that words are coming from +Rowans mouth with no real validity!
Another example of why Lambeth will be a COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME.
driver8, this seems to mean that unless someone who was present at the event or a churchwarden at St. Bart’s files a complaint, nothing can be done. Reading about it in the Telegraph doesn’t qualify as “witnessing” or “experiencing” the event I would imagine. Perhaps this is why this was so blatant? They knew they wouldn’t suffer consequences?
Actually, something appears to be already underway. The Bishop of London has asked the Archdeacon to launch an [url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,367191,00.html]investigation.[/url]
Thank you, Driver8 and Seitz, for explaining the proper process.
I suspect Martin Dudley may start backing down when the disciplinary process starts. For God’s sake one would hope so. Do clergy really have no honour and think their ordination vows are utterly meaningless?
[blockquote]”Unrepentant would be the right word,” Dudley was quoted as saying. “I have made no secret about this. I have done something that was a very nice pastoral, godly occasion. … I certainly didn’t do it to defy anyone. I have done what I believe is right.”[/blockquote]
Here by contrast is the explicit guidance of the COE House of Bishops:
[blockquote]Members of the clergy and candidates for ordination who decide to enter into partnerships must therefore expect to be asked for assurances that their relationship will be consistent with the teaching set out in Issues in Human Sexuality.
22. While clergy are fully entitled to argue, in the continuing debate, for a change in that teaching, they are not entitled to claim the liberty to set it aside, simply because of the passage of the Civil Partnerships Act. [/blockquote]
Thus:
1. Those clergy who enter Civil Partnerships must assure their bishops they are celibate.
2. Clergy don’t have the right to claim that their private judgment can overturn the Bishops’ teaching. That is, they are obliged in virtue of their ordination vows to follow the guidance issued buy the House of Bishops.
#29 The disciplinary system in the COE is quasi judicial. Think of it as like any breach of law. Just like any other breach of the law if no one alleges that the law has been broken then there will be no prosecution. That doesn’t mean that the law doesn’t punish criminals – it simply means that there is a judicial process that relies on people being prepared to use the process to bring to light Canon breakers.
Keep an eye on the ASA of the Church of England. The laity have a remarkably effective way of dealing with garbage like this.
“I certainly didn’t do it to defy anyone.” — somehow I am having a hard time believing that one.
We should be thankful for this “wedding,” as it provides great clarity.
There is absolutely no point to talking, or negotiating, or seeking to maintain some bizarre semblance of a “common path.”
[i]You must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolator or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. … Are you not to judge those inside [the church]? God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked man from among you.[/i] 1Cor 5:11-12